Paper detail

Eddington, Lemaitre and the hypothesis of cosmic expansion

Arthur Stanley Eddington was one of the leading astronomers and theorists of his generation and a prominent proponent of the general theory of relativity. Yet when his former assistant Georges Lemaitre sent him a paper in 1927 suggesting that the well-known redshifts of the spiral nebulae might be a manifestation of a cosmic expansion predicted by relativity, Eddington paid no attention for three years. In this paper, we consider the reasons for this oversight. We find that conventional explanations (such as Lemaitre's status as a relatively junior researcher and his decision to publish in a lesser-known Belgian journal) do not convince. We propose an alternative explanation that has not been considered in the literature - namely that the observational data cited by Lemaitre in support of his model were of a preliminary nature and would not have been sufficiently convincing for Eddington and others to consider non-static cosmologies.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.